GOV-02 · Stakeholder map

Build a real, evidence-based stakeholder map for a currently active policy question — who is affected, how, and what each stakeholder group has actually said in public.

One real, currently active policy question (a pending bill, a proposed regulation, or a live local policy debate). Public statements, testimony, or comment submissions from at least three distinct real stakeholder groups. A stakeholder map naming each group's stated position, stated interest, and relative influence over the outcome.

Inventing a stakeholder position the group has not actually stated. Reducing a stakeholder group to a caricature instead of its actual stated reasoning. Only mapping stakeholders who agree with the student's own view.

Stakeholder map (minimum three groups) with sourced positions; an influence assessment explaining who has the most leverage over the outcome and why; a short reflection on which stakeholder's interest the student found least intuitive going in.

CT: interests as evidence, not assumption. CR: every stated position traceable to a real source. CO: peer checks one stakeholder's position against the cited source. CM: stakeholder map. CZ: any stakeholder group left out of the mainstream debate.

Government or civics teacher reviews that stakeholder positions are sourced, not assumed. School-supervised.

R1: one policy question, one map. R2: positions traceable to real sources. R3: influence assessment uses a real analytical basis (resources, access, organization), not a guess. R4: at least three distinct groups genuinely represented. R5: map usable by someone new to the issue.

(a) A two-sided "pro and con" list standing in for an actual stakeholder map. (b) A stakeholder's position invented from what the student assumes they would think.

Lane A immediately. No verified credit claim.